4 ms·

>You may have heard the old saw about marriage: “You can be right, or you can be happy.” -- Happy to see that saying in there. In its sometimes hard to rememb

by mgr86 11y ago

>You may have heard the old saw about marriage: “You can be right, or you can be happy.” -- Happy to see that saying in there. In its sometimes hard to remember that not everyone is as logic oriented as myself.

issa 11y ago
I think you could safely add that last sentence to the list of things NOT to say to a spouse.
- existencebox 11y ago
  Is that necessarily true? It seems like it would depend on the dynamic. I know I've had many and extensive (and quite good) conversations with my fiancee as to how she was brought up in a family that valued emotional reasoning over logical reasoning. Knowing the inputs and broad transactions to someone's mental processes (especially if they're very close to you) can help facilitate communication/understanding, regardless of the value judgement one applies to them. To tie this back to the article, sometimes being right can work, but it's a risky line to push without the above, a clear understanding of the person opposite you's mental process. That being said, also as the above, I find that in situations where a business relationship can build that trust and understanding even in the face of contrary views on certain things (logic vs emotion, to draw that parallel) a far better working relationship can be established, although I have a feeling to an entrepreneurial community this is stating the obvious :) I think the author touches on this but not specifically, "be easy to work with" is a nice umbrella that I'd add an addendum to, a hope that both parties try to give each other the benefit of the doubt and some tolerance through disagreement in the hope that the opposite party is doing the same, and eventually, you may not have to worry as much about the friction of being right. (within reason)
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    >I know I've had many and extensive (and quite good) conversations with my fiancee as to how she was brought up in a family that valued emotional reasoning over logical reasoning. Yeah, I tried marrying someone like that. It didn't turn out well. I recommend breaking off the engagement while you still can, or else you're in for years of misery.
    - pc86 11y ago
      Totally uncalled for.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        True, and yet... it might be worth existencebox's while to be sure that he and his fiancee communicate. Make sure it's not going to become a landmine that blows up your marriage. It doesn't mean don't marry her. It means make sure it's something you can both live with before you marry her.
      - Grishnakh 11y ago
        How so? Logical and irrational people just aren't that likely to get along that well, especially when it comes to things like finances. They might get along well just hanging around together perhaps, but marriage involves a lot of hard, real-world things besides just liking each other and liking to eat at the same restaurants together or whatever. My advice: have some really serious discussions about finances, spending, budgeting, how much you like to run the heat and A/C in your house, how much you like to save/invest, etc. with your prospective spouse long before getting engaged.
        existencebox 11y ago
        To answer this, the parents, and many sibling posts all in one; we've already have almost a good decade of misery together, so we figured "might as well do it for masochism's sake" :) I'd re-echo the clarification of my main point though, and be less glib: by being able to meet these differences head on, we each managed over the years to shift the other, and produce a dynamic I've become "pretty OK" with. Fortunately the mindsets of the parents don't have to carry down to children in exact parity. (To re-glib for the conclusion; Especially in my case or else I'd be elbow deep in some cancer patient, and I don't have a strong stomach for that sort of thing)
        HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
        by being able to meet these differences head on That is really key. I am convinced that the reason many relationships, from business to marriages, get in trouble is by avoiding the inevitable conflict or managing it poorly. People will disagree: to respond to an earlier point, my spouse often reminds me that she's not as logically oriented as I am. That's a reminder that all problems can't be addressed through logic. As long as each of us remembers how the other is wired, we find a way to muddle through all the problems we've come across. And there have been some Duesies! But the important thing is to address them and not let issues fester until they explode. More on topic for HN: conflict resolution is an important skill for anyone who will be managing others or engaging with customers. Learning to get better at it can have a positive impact on your bottom line.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >I know I've had many and extensive (and quite good) conversations with my fiancee as to how she was brought up in a family that valued emotional reasoning over logical reasoning. I understand that most people value emotional reasoning more than I do. I don't get people valuing it more than logical reasoning. There is just so much potential danger with implicit and explicit bias. Sexism and racism tends to be more the result of emotional reasoning than logical reasoning. (Think of a jury/judge sentencing a black guy to a harsher sentence than a white guy who did the same crime. Imagine if the difference between if the justification was the black guy felt more dangerous vs a justification such as in this instant the black guy having similar prior offenses. Which justification is racism?)
    - existencebox 11y ago
      To clarify my point, my intent wasn't to assign value to thinking emotionally, but to suggest that being candid and open about differences such that they exist is an important step to working productively despite, or even because of them. That being said though, you bring up an addendum I would counter that although you're right to say there is potential danger to emotional thinking, there's potential danger to purely logical thinking as well; to bring this back to my original statement in which avoiding confronting these differences in an "easy to work with" fashion reduces the chances of moving even a little towards a middle ground to 0.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        I would definitely agree there is great danger in purely logical reasoning, especially if it were someone who had limited empathy. I wonder, if both extremes are dangerous, is the middle ground safe?
Grishnakh 11y ago
>You may have heard the old saw about marriage: “You can be right, or you can be happy.” Yeah, I tried that in my marriage. Don't insist on being right, let the wife be happy and it'll make you happy. Instead, it made me broke and miserable and so I asked for a divorce.
sbov 11y ago
Well, if someone picks fights over logically best answers for stuff that doesn't matter that much then I wouldn't consider them as logical as they think.
draw_down 11y ago
Sticking up for yourself is part of being happy, trust me.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Yeah. I get it, different people are wired differently, and every couple negotiates their own protocol. But for me, it doesn't work, and I can't imagine it ever working. I'm not comfortable with the required level of cognitive dissonance. With my SO, we're always aiming for "eventually right". When there is an argument, we focus on reaching common emotional ground first. Then, sometimes not immediately, we both talk the issue through calmly to determine who, if anyone, was right, and exchange appropriate apologies. The point being, it's often more important to defuse the situation first, but both of us value knowing the truth about situations, and want to be always on the same page. Otherwise someone will end up having those kinds of hurt feelings that tend to slowly rot you from inside. It doesn't work with anyone; it takes a honest and cooperative partner to pull it off. And it takes trust. If my SO was as patient as I am, we'd end every argument in 30 seconds with full agreement about the situation, Aumann-style. She isn't, and so I sometimes have to trust that after the storm there will be the phase of reconciliation. And there always is.

by mgr86 11y ago

issa 11y ago

I think you could safely add that last sentence to the list of things NOT to say to a spouse.

existencebox 11y ago
Is that necessarily true? It seems like it would depend on the dynamic. I know I've had many and extensive (and quite good) conversations with my fiancee as to how she was brought up in a family that valued emotional reasoning over logical reasoning. Knowing the inputs and broad transactions to someone's mental processes (especially if they're very close to you) can help facilitate communication/understanding, regardless of the value judgement one applies to them. To tie this back to the article, sometimes being right can work, but it's a risky line to push without the above, a clear understanding of the person opposite you's mental process. That being said, also as the above, I find that in situations where a business relationship can build that trust and understanding even in the face of contrary views on certain things (logic vs emotion, to draw that parallel) a far better working relationship can be established, although I have a feeling to an entrepreneurial community this is stating the obvious :) I think the author touches on this but not specifically, "be easy to work with" is a nice umbrella that I'd add an addendum to, a hope that both parties try to give each other the benefit of the doubt and some tolerance through disagreement in the hope that the opposite party is doing the same, and eventually, you may not have to worry as much about the friction of being right. (within reason)
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  >I know I've had many and extensive (and quite good) conversations with my fiancee as to how she was brought up in a family that valued emotional reasoning over logical reasoning. Yeah, I tried marrying someone like that. It didn't turn out well. I recommend breaking off the engagement while you still can, or else you're in for years of misery.
  - pc86 11y ago
    Totally uncalled for.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      True, and yet... it might be worth existencebox's while to be sure that he and his fiancee communicate. Make sure it's not going to become a landmine that blows up your marriage. It doesn't mean don't marry her. It means make sure it's something you can both live with before you marry her.
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      How so? Logical and irrational people just aren't that likely to get along that well, especially when it comes to things like finances. They might get along well just hanging around together perhaps, but marriage involves a lot of hard, real-world things besides just liking each other and liking to eat at the same restaurants together or whatever. My advice: have some really serious discussions about finances, spending, budgeting, how much you like to run the heat and A/C in your house, how much you like to save/invest, etc. with your prospective spouse long before getting engaged.
      - existencebox 11y ago
        To answer this, the parents, and many sibling posts all in one; we've already have almost a good decade of misery together, so we figured "might as well do it for masochism's sake" :) I'd re-echo the clarification of my main point though, and be less glib: by being able to meet these differences head on, we each managed over the years to shift the other, and produce a dynamic I've become "pretty OK" with. Fortunately the mindsets of the parents don't have to carry down to children in exact parity. (To re-glib for the conclusion; Especially in my case or else I'd be elbow deep in some cancer patient, and I don't have a strong stomach for that sort of thing)
        HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
        by being able to meet these differences head on That is really key. I am convinced that the reason many relationships, from business to marriages, get in trouble is by avoiding the inevitable conflict or managing it poorly. People will disagree: to respond to an earlier point, my spouse often reminds me that she's not as logically oriented as I am. That's a reminder that all problems can't be addressed through logic. As long as each of us remembers how the other is wired, we find a way to muddle through all the problems we've come across. And there have been some Duesies! But the important thing is to address them and not let issues fester until they explode. More on topic for HN: conflict resolution is an important skill for anyone who will be managing others or engaging with customers. Learning to get better at it can have a positive impact on your bottom line.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >I know I've had many and extensive (and quite good) conversations with my fiancee as to how she was brought up in a family that valued emotional reasoning over logical reasoning. I understand that most people value emotional reasoning more than I do. I don't get people valuing it more than logical reasoning. There is just so much potential danger with implicit and explicit bias. Sexism and racism tends to be more the result of emotional reasoning than logical reasoning. (Think of a jury/judge sentencing a black guy to a harsher sentence than a white guy who did the same crime. Imagine if the difference between if the justification was the black guy felt more dangerous vs a justification such as in this instant the black guy having similar prior offenses. Which justification is racism?)
  - existencebox 11y ago
    To clarify my point, my intent wasn't to assign value to thinking emotionally, but to suggest that being candid and open about differences such that they exist is an important step to working productively despite, or even because of them. That being said though, you bring up an addendum I would counter that although you're right to say there is potential danger to emotional thinking, there's potential danger to purely logical thinking as well; to bring this back to my original statement in which avoiding confronting these differences in an "easy to work with" fashion reduces the chances of moving even a little towards a middle ground to 0.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      I would definitely agree there is great danger in purely logical reasoning, especially if it were someone who had limited empathy. I wonder, if both extremes are dangerous, is the middle ground safe?

Grishnakh 11y ago

>You may have heard the old saw about marriage: “You can be right, or you can be happy.” Yeah, I tried that in my marriage. Don't insist on being right, let the wife be happy and it'll make you happy. Instead, it made me broke and miserable and so I asked for a divorce.

sbov 11y ago

Well, if someone picks fights over logically best answers for stuff that doesn't matter that much then I wouldn't consider them as logical as they think.

draw_down 11y ago

Sticking up for yourself is part of being happy, trust me.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Yeah. I get it, different people are wired differently, and every couple negotiates their own protocol. But for me, it doesn't work, and I can't imagine it ever working. I'm not comfortable with the required level of cognitive dissonance. With my SO, we're always aiming for "eventually right". When there is an argument, we focus on reaching common emotional ground first. Then, sometimes not immediately, we both talk the issue through calmly to determine who, if anyone, was right, and exchange appropriate apologies. The point being, it's often more important to defuse the situation first, but both of us value knowing the truth about situations, and want to be always on the same page. Otherwise someone will end up having those kinds of hurt feelings that tend to slowly rot you from inside. It doesn't work with anyone; it takes a honest and cooperative partner to pull it off. And it takes trust. If my SO was as patient as I am, we'd end every argument in 30 seconds with full agreement about the situation, Aumann-style. She isn't, and so I sometimes have to trust that after the storm there will be the phase of reconciliation. And there always is.